signbabybrady

I was always under the idea that the uncapped year and its restrictions were put in place to force the Owners and the PA to get a deal done. Meaning the restrictions were bad for both sides so they would both be willing to negotiate.

Many on here have been going by the assumption next year will be uncapped and are trying to use the uncapped year to spend Krafts money in ways we don't know he would.(like paying off all of Wilforks bonus in 2010 so its off the books for future years)

I think it is a bad assumption by many to think next year will be uncapped and I think it is even worse to think Kraft will spend a ridiculous amount of money in the uncapped world....He might spend more than most but I can't see him spending much more than he usually does.

Also dont forget it is a labor issue so barring a renegotiating of the CBA we are likely looking at bad things (lockout or strike) not good things (uncapped spending spree).

__________________

AzPatsFan

You are under a misapprehension. Signing a key player like Sey or Wilfork wil incur an enormous cost in real money, in year one for the "Signing Bonus" or a huge "Roster Bonus/Salary".

The sums of money are the same in an uncapped year. The only difference is the accounting. In one case its amortized/depreciated, in the same year, (roster bonus/salary); in the other case its amortized/depreciated over several years, (singing bonus). Most business prefer rapid depreciation schedules, and actually a single year depreciation.

It behooves the Pats to change the way the contract refers to the sum of money if they believe that a CAP will return or not. It changes not a wit, the actual outgo.

NEGoldenAge

I think a salary cap is necessary in all professional sports. Even one single uncapped year will let a lot of teams get out of a mess that they got themselves into... The Jests are a perfect example.

I'll be pissed if we get an uncapped year, but I think, with the passing of Mr. Upshaw, that an uncapped year is what we will see. I don't believe they have replaced him yet.

Brettlax3434

wouldn't Upshaw want an uncapped year?

__________________
Bill Belichick on being introduced as a team (2001): "The players wanted to do it that way; they wanted to come out as a team. We've been doing it since October. ... That's the reason we won. Because we played the game as a team."

NEGoldenAge

I don't know. But I do know that negotiations won't be happening until he is replaced.

signbabybrady

There are restrictions to the players in an uncapped world....there would be tons of players in the 3rd-6th years that wont be happy to be restricted instead of unrestricted for example.


Oh I understand what your saying but you are the one with misapprehension....the reason for doing this would be to pay him all at once to free up money for the cap in later years so at some point you will be spending money that you don't know Kraft would want too....it winds up more than just creative accounting to take advantage of it....And don't get me wrong I think Kraft would have the Pats take advantage to some extent but he isnt going to go all stienbrenner....and as a football fan I would rather see labor peace than an uncapped year.

__________________

Deus Irae

Well, I haven't done a lot of research on this because I figure it's not worth the time, but I would imagine that smart, wealthy teams would try to front-load contracts if at all possible. That would price out the Green Bays of the world and lessen the cap hit in future years when the CBA finally does get negotiated.

__________________
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
- Marcus Aurelius

spacecrime

But neither side wants to negotiate.

How do youk figure there will be a CBA if neither side is interested in talking about one, let alone hammer one out and sign it?

Also, you mention that Kraft will not spend a lot of money. Why do you say that? He is one of the teams that has the capital to do so if he wants to. He seems like a guy who enjoys winning superbowls. You think he will cheap out, save a few million and not be a world chmapion? By being world champ, he has increased the value of his team. It would be good business to win more superbowls. Saving a few million may be necessary for Ralph Wilson and Irsay to survive, but it is penny wise and pound foolish for Kraft, Snyder, Jones, Allen, and the rich owners. None of whom got to where they are by being pound foolish.


You are looking at it from your viewpoint, not the viewpoint of the principals. If the players want to go on strike, it is not a bad thing in their mind. To them it is what they want to do. Ditto a lockout. If they owners think it is in their best interests, they will lock out the players.

I hope it doesn't come to that, but it may.

signbabybrady

I heard the PA will vote on a new leader this weekend. Also there has to be some posturing there... no side wants to blink but at some point they will be back at the table (may not work out but they will negotiate more). And as I said the uncapped world and its restrictions were put in place to make both sides want to avoid it.


I am not trying to say Kraft wont be smart about and he may open up his wallet but I think a lot on here have presumed alot about how they might work deals with guys like Wilfork, Mankins, Seymour, and the other FA next year with Krafts money assuming he will just throw it around like crazy paying all these guys in an uncapped year to free up ridiculous sums.

No, any work stoppage is bad from both sides because no one is making money but sometimes either side feels its the only way to get what they feel they deserve. If they dont come to an agreement and an uncapped year comes there will be players and owners who get screwed and watch other players and owners take advantage of it and it could be real ugly. I hope they take care of things and don't let it get there.

__________________

solman

1. There will be no strike or lockout in 2010. The CBA prohibits it. Players could probably get around this by decertifying the union but they won't because:
A) The union has always maintained that no cap would be good for the players
B) An uncapped year is unquestionably better than a labor stoppage for the players and
C) They would look like the bad guys, and they can ill-afford to alienate the public.

2. You are absolutely right about Kraft be restrained in his 2010 spending. Kraft is a leader amongst the owners. He will be under pressure to set a good example by not overspending. He is also a businessman first. It is not at all clear that going Dan Snyder in 2010 would be a good investment.

3. I don't agree with the assertion that the uncapped year is intended never to happen. An uncapped year gives both sides the opportunity to observe just how large the actual difference is between player salaries in a capped and an uncapped world. If the two sides are unable to reach an agreement, observing the uncapped world will at least allow them to better agree on the financial consequences of the cap.

4. I absolutely think we are heading into an uncapped year. The owners NEED to recover some of the revenues that they gave to the players. The financial consequences of an actual labor stoppage are very asymmetric. They owners will be looking to reduce the player's share by about 2%. This represents between 10 and 20% of the owner's profits, but just 2% of the player's take home pay. The new union leadership can't afford to look weak, and they will have difficulty accepting such a reduction unless they are on the very precipice of a work stoppage.

5. In my opinion, an uncapped 2010 in which player salaries increase by very little is likely to be a decisive factor in convincing them to accept a haircut (But I still expect them to push things to the last minute or even further before agreeing to a deal.)